Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'size'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • General
    • Announcements
    • Welcome Aboard
  • Kerbal Space Program 1
    • KSP1 Discussion
    • KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion
    • KSP1 Challenges & Mission ideas
    • KSP1 The Spacecraft Exchange
    • KSP1 Mission Reports
    • KSP1 Gameplay and Technical Support
    • KSP1 Mods
    • KSP1 Expansions
  • Kerbal Space Program 2
    • KSP2 Dev Updates
    • KSP2 Discussion
    • KSP2 Suggestions and Development Discussion
    • Challenges & Mission Ideas
    • The KSP2 Spacecraft Exchange
    • Mission Reports
    • KSP2 Prelaunch Archive
  • Kerbal Space Program 2 Gameplay & Technical Support
    • KSP2 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
    • KSP2 Technical Support (PC, unmodded installs)
    • KSP2 Technical Support (PC, modded installs)
  • Kerbal Space Program 2 Mods
    • KSP2 Mod Discussions
    • KSP2 Mod Releases
    • KSP2 Mod Development
  • Community
    • Science & Spaceflight
    • Kerbal Network
    • The Lounge
    • KSP Fan Works
  • International
    • International

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start



Website URL



About me



Found 10 results

  1. The challenge: In KSP or KSP2, make your smallest orbiter in terms of size or weight. Good Luck! (Mods are allowed but Kraken drives prohibited) The picker wheel to see which category you are
  2. Reason for removing twin-boar and mammoth engines was that you can do the same by attachment on engine plates. But in KSP2 it's so difficult to make rocket with several medium/big engines in most cases, because engines have big mount, which often goes over the edge of engine plate. Only vector engine suits well for engine plate way of building rockets, this is unfair. I suggest to make different variants of mount like in making history, it will make engine placement more comfortable, even if their nozzle is bigger than mount like KE-1 in last example I think it's not so big problem, just reworking of model. It will make creation of craft more comfortable and some engines and plates more useful. It will be more convenient to balance TWR by changing engines configuration on different stages, you could use available on current stage of career/progression mode engines more creatively, and also it will be good feature to make accurate replica
  3. As the title says, I was wondering why the sizing for the parts are in the format of “xs, sm, md, lg, xl” instead of just “xs, s, m, l, xl” I think changing this feature would increase readability of the sizes along with the amazing color coding already in place.
  4. I've looked through posts here on the forum, on Reddit, looked at how several mods interpret the issue... What does radial size actually mean? I know that a curved panel of radial size big (2.5 m) is going to fit snugly around a 2.5 m fuselage. But does that mean the RADIUS is 2.5 meters or the DIAMETER? I know KSP size doesn't directly translate to RL size, but taking the Cupola as an example, it fits 2.5 m closest. In that case, it's diameter. But the Saturn V 1st stage had a diameter of 10m, while the KSP version has 5. Am I missing something here or is there just no "canon"?
  5. Having destroyed the engines on my landable launch-stages in Career one too many times because there is no landing leg in the game large enough to land a Mainsail (or in my case, a cluster of Mainsails) without either heavy part-clipping of the engines or putting the legs on the ends of wings (which is draggy, structurally-weak, and makes it harder to maintain aerodynamic stability during an engines-first re-entry), and had even more launch stages tip over after landing, I am BEGGING for some larger stock landing-legs. Nothing too fancy. Just BIG. Maybe a 400 kg mass leg part? (this should put it in the right size/strength-range for landing heavy launch stages with Mainsail clusters, or crewed round-trip missions on Eve...) To avoid this being a problem again in the future, as players move towards ever-heavier designs, I suggest 3 new sizes of legs: - a 400 kg landing leg part, for landing Mainsail stages - a 200 kg part, more for when you just need a wider base: such as landing tall stacks with small Reliant/Skiff engine clusters on the bottom. - An 800 kg part, for truly insane designs: like heavy Eve landers. Additionally, if there were more aerodynamic-looking versions of some of these legs (like the ones in Kerbal Reusability Expansion) that would be amazing! I'll take any/all of those, as long as there is a leg in the 400 kg size range. But the 3 options I listed above really would make things easier (and more realistic: the stock legs are far too small for the forces they can repeatedly withstand) and less frustrating for players... And once again, for those who feel the need to make such comments: "LOL, just add mods!" is NOT an acceptable answer. Having been playing this game for 6+ years, I have seen countless mods come and go: but Stock parts stick around, are available on Console, and are official content- giving more players the chance to use these parts and become familiar with them. KSP has given me great diversion, frustration, and (sometimes) joy over the years- but it could be so much more. Expanding the range of stock parts available is a move in this direction: and I, like many players, would even be willing to pay for another expansion with a sufficiently-large selection of such new Stock parts... (although honestly, given where player base opinion is right now on DLC, how basic this functionality is of having larger legs, and how many people have been fiscally harmed by Covid-19: now is probably NOT the time for this to be another DLC: it would be better to add this "free" and sell other new parts/features later...)
  6. Show of the biggest SpaceShip/Spaceplane You built! (Tweakscale and HangarExtender allowed)
  7. Disclaimer - I searched links to common suggestions, and title searched the forum back 1 year and couldn't find anything to say that this one had been beaten to death previously. It probably has to be honest as I'm quite surprised nothing came up in a search. Note - This is not a thread to discuss fairings themselves, but specifically the fairing part, or what forms the "base plate" part. Please feel free to discuss, but try and steer away from "boo spaghetti" or "down with orange banding" if possible . Without further ado: FAIRING PARTS SUMMARY The small and medium fairing parts are too thick. I can deal with the thickness of the 3.75m plate as it at least looks like its in proportion, and I can forgive the 2.5m in certain applications such as inter-stages, but the 1.25m plate just feels too ungainly. Aesthetically I'm disappointed when I have to use it, particularly on fairing enclosed probes (see right hand fairing in picture). PROPOSAL I'd like to see the fairing parts themselves overhauled to a much more athletic profile. SM
  8. I've noticed that a lot of mods use extra sizes besides the stock ones. This is great, and adds a huge amount of flexibility. However, besides a few like 1.875m and 5m, a lot of them are ill-defined, and other aspects, like node size and bulkhead profiles, are even more poorly standardized, and there is often little consistency. Size Scale Diameter Real-life Bulkhead Node Size 0.1 0.125 0.2 0 Size 00 0.25 0.3125 0.5 size00 0 Size 0 0.5 0.625 1 size0 0 Size 0.5 0.75 0.9375 1.5 size0p5 0 Size 1 1 1.25 2 size1 1 Size 1.2 1.2 1.5 2.4 size1p2 1 Size 1.5 1.5 1.875 3 size1p5 2 Size 2 2 2.5 4 size2 2 Size 2.5 2.5 3.125 5 size2p5 3 Size 3 3 3.75 6 size3 3 Size 3.5 3 3.75 6 size3p5 4 Size 4 4 5 8 size4 4 Size 4.5 4.5 5.625 9 size4p5 5 Size 5 5 6.25 10 size5 5 Size 6 6 7.5 12 size6 6 Size 7 7 8.75 14 size7 7 Size 8 8 10 16 size8 8 Google Sheet Please let me know if I missed anything. I'd like to make this reference list as complete as possible.
  9. I have been playing with one of the rover wheels making some new parts out of them and resizing and tweaking them but I am getting some issues with anything under 0.5 in scaleFactor hovering instead of connecting with the ground. I have changed the FitWheelColliderToMesh to true and googled about and tried messing with the suspension values but to no avail. Closest I can get is to lower the visible wheel but the rest of the rover is separated from the wheel itself including the top half of the suspension. they stay raised up and it becomes stuck as if it's belly is on the ground. Can anyone explain to me how I might solve this?
  10. I know about all of the RSS and texture mods, but is there a mod that makes the sizes of the stock planets and other objects realistic?
  • Create New...